From a letter to some friends
Friday, May 1, 2015
THE MYSTERY OF
JESUS
By
Francis William Bessler
Laramie, Wyoming
1/23/2009;
enhanced somewhat on 5/10/2009;
modified a bit on 4/30/2015
Note:
Like the previous essay, ON VISIONS & DREAMS, initially I wrote this in 2009; and like that one on visions and dreams, I am retrieving the one I wrote in 2009 and modifying it a bit on this day of 4/30/2015 - though only slightly. Actually, I wrote this one a little before I wrote ON VISIONS & DREAMS; however, in general, both essays are related; and thus, I am including this one on this occasion too.
1/23/2009
Hi, Michele & Karyl,
(And Hello, Everyone! I had Michele and Karyl, living close by, to dinner a few days ago. One of my favorite subjects came up - Jesus. Michele and Karyl believe in a "Lord Jesus" whereas I believe in a "Master Jesus." With this essay, I am sharing my thoughts about why I think Jesus would prefer to be thought of more as a “master” than a “lord." Keep in mind, those thoughts are only my opinions. As I share them with you, consider yourself welcome to share them with others. FWB.)
Possibilities & Probabilities
About Life in general, I see it in terms of possibilities and probabilities. It's "possible" that it derives from some sinister source, but having lived mostly happy for 67 years now, I have lost all fear of that. I look at life and review wonder - and I do not relate wonder with sinister. I relate wonder with Divine or Godly. What is the possibility I am wrong? I think, very low. What is the probability I am right? I think, very high. Yes, it is minimally possible that life is not of the Divine, given that the Divine is just another expression for Infinite; but it is not probable that it lacks in Divinity.
Regardless of all the many opinions of the past and present that would define life in some sinister way as being imperfect, then, I see life itself as perfect. If the "probability" is that it is Divine or of the Divine, then the "probability" is that it is perfect as well because in my mind, nothing Divine can be imperfect. That perspective of life, then, holds life itself in tremendous esteem, disallowing any possibility of it being sinful. If there is sin in the world - or fault, which is another word for sin - it cannot be in life itself. It can only happen by virtue of conduct, not exist by virtue of some sinister source.
That perspective leads me to live my life like the wondrous thing it is should be embraced. I may not understand it - and for sure, I do not - but it is not for me to take my lack of understanding of it and translate that into accusation of imperfection. Even death as part of the entire picture cannot be an expression of imperfection. I think we humans tend to see death as expressive of imperfection, but I do not see it that way. What is the possibility that death is an expression of imperfection? I would say, very low - though there is an extremely minimal possibility that it is. Maybe all life is supposed to live forever, but that maybe is so low as to be almost non existent. What is the probability that death is an aspect of perfection? Look around and see for yourself. Everything dies. So the probability that death is part of the wonder is extremely high.
Now. take it from there. What is the possibility that an Infinite God is going to damn me for embracing It's Creation? Almost zilch. What is the probability that I will be rewarded in some way for embracing God's Creation? Almost without a doubt. I don't think God Itself will reward me, but just living my life aware of life as a blessing will reward me all I need to be rewarded. In other words, Virtue is its own reward. The reward for embracing life and loving it is happiness. There it is. It all comes down to possibility and probability.
As I see it, many - if not most - of my fellow human beings live life like the possibility of life being Divine and incorruptible is extremely low and the probability of life being sinful by nature is high. I find myself wondering why mankind is still holding onto notions about life that preceded Jesus and should have been dispelled with his life; but then with Jesus, we have to continue the discussion of possibility and probability.
What is the possibility of Jesus - or anyone - being a redeemer, sent by God to redeem us from a sin we do not, in fact, have - given the probability that life is Divine and perfect and incorruptible? You tell me. If, in fact, life has always been perfect, of what need would there be of what is called redemption? None! If Jesus did not live to redeem us, then why did he live? Good question, but the wise one will answer it in terms of possibility and probability - just like all issues of life. Never mind the stories of Jesus told by those trying to gain some attention and support for their own regimens. In pure mathematical terms, if such is possible, what is the probability that Jesus really did exist as a redeemer when redemption is not needed?
I know many - including yourselves, Michele & Karyl - have a view of Jesus as standing for actual ruling by Him over others - perhaps in some Celestial Kingdom or in some Later Kingdom on Earth or perhaps on a Jupiter; but I have since determined that it is highly likely - or highly probable - we misunderstood him when he offered "another kingdom." He said "my kingdom is not of this world," but he "probably" meant my rule is not of this world. He was not about setting up an actual law bound kingdom, but offering that there is but one kingdom that is of any worth, a kingdom "not of this world" in terms of expecting a worldly type rule of one over the other - including a Jesus over anyone else. His was a kingdom of kindness. That's all. One who belongs to such a kingdom is a "king" or a "queen" no matter where he or she goes. It is Kindness Itself that is "The Kingdom." It is good to keep in mind that Jesus often used metaphors to express an idea. A "kingdom" can be understood to represent "security," but security can exist entirely outside of an actual law bound kingdom. Can't it?
Rule – not Law
That is my take on Jesus. Jesus was - and is - not about law. He was about rule - but rule of yourself, not rule over another. Of course, it is to each his or her own, but it is really nice to be living in a "kingdom" and having peace now rather than anticipating a kingdom that will probably never be because the "real Jesus" will never be there - probably. Others claim he will be there, and expect it because they have been told it is so - or will be so - but I think they had - and have - Jesus wrong.
That is not to say, however, that there does not exist spiritual or soulful communities - or kingdoms - that actually believe in a redeemer Jesus. I suspect that many such communities - or kingdoms - do exist; and it is entirely possible - if not probable - that such kingdoms will acclaim their various believers in some way after life. I suspect that Peter is standing at some gate, waving for souls to come on in, but it is not probable that Jesus is in the company. Why? Because it is improbable that a person who taught that his kingdom is not of an order of law will preside over a community that is law bound with a law that requires acceptance of Jesus as a personal savior from a sin we do not, in fact have. What is the likelihood - or probability - of that? Is it likely that Jesus - who preached we should be as children, implying belief in innocence - would preside over a community that rewards its obedient members for belief in guilt? I doubt it. I could be wrong, but the probability of that is very low.
Reasonably, too, if souls do survive death to be entertained and accepted by other souls of like kind, it stands to reason that there could be an actual community of Jesus that is about collecting to itself Jesus like souls that imitated Jesus in life and practiced kindness to all for the sake of the virtue itself; but if such a community does exist, it is highly unlikely that interface and interaction with Jesus will happen. Why should it? Anyone who would be embraced by such a community would not be so embraced because of a need for a pat on the back from Jesus, but only because of being kindred spirits, so to speak. I might bump into Jesus - and I might not - but it wouldn't matter in the least. That which will matter is that I am together with kindred spirits. In any event, if I lived a kind life before death, I certainly would not be "collected" by mean souls. At least, it is not likely I will - though, admittedly, anything is possible. It's just not probable.
Many believe that Jesus lived to redeem us from sin because that is what they have been taught. Quite frankly, a variation of that is possible – if communities of souls collect kindred souls to themselves. What might be the temper or character of soul that represents the soulful community or “providence” of Jesus? Since Jesus accented kindness or forgiveness as a way of life, it is reasonable to assume that he and his “providence” would be interested in kind souls. Is it not? His way and his kingdom is a way of kindness – and, if so, all one would need to belong to the kingdom of Jesus is to be kind – or forgiving. I find that to be an interesting idea – and quite likely possible, and even probable.
In the light, then, that Jesus lived to redeem us from sin, change that to rescue us from guilt – and it might be true. We have no inherent sin because our natures are inherently good, being within and of God, but we do have – or have had – guilt in terms of believing we have sin. Indeed, we have been carefully taught down through the ages that we have sin. Since false guilt drives unhappiness and meanness – often by virtue of law, commanding punishment for being what we are – to rid ourselves of false guilt is to rid ourselves of meanness or unkindness. So, if Jesus is seen as release from guilt, by virtue of advice, it may well be true that he lived to rescue unhappy or imprisoned souls from previous allegiance to ways of guilt.
In that light, then, it could well be true that Jesus lived to harvest Jesus type souls; but such a harvest could in no way be tied to fulfilling or completing any religious tradition based on guilt and belief in inherent sin. Again, it is a matter of possibility and probability; but in all probability, if Jesus represents freedom from guilt and belief in innocence, Jesus could not have lived to fulfill Jewish tradition because Jewish tradition was founded upon – and is entrenched in – a sense of guilt. If we are really inherently good – as is probably the case – there is no need for law to force us to be good. Is there?
The Kingdom of Jesus
I know it is fashionable to think that Jesus died for us, but I have gone through that so many times in my mind and heart to suspect that if Jesus were to tell me himself of what is important, he would tell me to look at his life - not his death. Death is not important for any of us, but living right is. I hear him telling me that. He would tell me that I should be thoughtful of life now and be impressed with life now, realizing that OUR FATHER is its Creator. Of what sense does it make to deny what the Creator is making and giving? That is what he would ask me. He'd tell me to be aware of my blessings today and be satisfied with "daily bread" and not be greedy. He would tell me that I should forgive others in order to live in a state of forgiveness. Imagine that? He would tell me that OUR FATHER did not Create our world in order to use it to test us. Imagine that too? He would say, Hey, Life is a Gift. Do you think you made it? Do you think one called "Satan" made it? Think Again! You are Living in a Gift - and it is for you to be mindful of that and thankful for that. And if you do these things, I hear him saying, you will be "delivered from evil."
So, where is the Promised Kingdom of Jesus? It is Here and it is Now (as well as “forever”) - and it is "not of this world of law," but of the Rule of Kindness or Gentleness – which commands forgiveness. No one can be gentle if one is constantly holding a grudge. If there is no release from judgment and grudgment, there can be no kindness. Thus, to achieve kindness, one must practice forgiveness.
The “Lord’s” Prayer
Jesus did not call his summary of his thoughts "The Lord's Prayer." He simply said that when we pray, we should pray thus. Another labeled it The Lord's Prayer; but it is not the prayer of a lord, but rather the prayer of a master, one who rules him or herself with kindness to all - which is to say, being gentle with all, including yourself. That is "likely" - or probably - the only kingdom Jesus was about. That actual summary of life - not death - went something like this:
Our Father, Who are in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come and will be done - on earth as it is in heaven (In other words, God's presence is everywhere, on earth and in and beyond the skies, understood in the time of Jesus as "the heavens"). Give us this day our daily bread (in other words, don't be greedy) and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us (in other words, forgiveness and kindness we earn only by forgiving others in order to live in a "state of forgiveness"). Lead us not into temptation (as if to say, we understand that life is not intended as a temptation, but as a gift) but deliver us from evil (to say that to do these things, life lacks evil). Amen!
Death & Sacrifice
Really? Doesn't that make a lot more sense? Where is "death" in that? And where is "sacrifice" in that? And where is "Satan" in that? Jesus is portrayed as "fighting Satan" only because those who want war need an adversary. That is what war is all about - fighting an adversary; but Jesus was not about fighting an adversary, but rather proclaiming a rule. The Jews of the time believed in a Satan. Jesus did not. Anyone who knows life as a precious paradise does not "blame it on Satan," but knows it comes from God and cannot be defiled by anyone. We sadden ourselves by thinking that life can be defiled, but we fool ourselves in thinking we actually do it. We do not defile life by disclaiming it because no one has power to defile anything of God. We only fool ourselves; but in our self fraudulence, we become sad and sick and unhappy.
No, Michele & Karyl, I do not think Jesus died for us. He died because of our rejection of him and his counsel, but he did not die to restore us to a God we have never left. Jesus was turned into a sacrifice by those who want a kingdom of law and have been led to believe that Jesus preached such a kingdom; but the Jesus I see did not preach sacrifice, but simple ordinary kindness. Again, where do you see "sacrifice to protect or improve life" in the so called Lord's Prayer? It isn't there, is it? And neither should we be mistaken to think that any death - that of Jesus or any other - can substitute for the one rule that matters - the rule of kindness.
I think it is good to keep in mind, My Friends, that the Jews of the origin of Jesus believed in sacrifice. Sacrifice was the mainstay of their religion. They believed in sacrifice because they believed that there is a god outside of life that needs to be pleased. Theirs was a history of offering sacrifice to please their god. In that light, it is probable that good Jews like Peter and Paul saw Jesus in the light of their mainstay - sacrifice. And that is "probably" why early Christians like Peter and Paul saw Jesus as a sacrifice. It was their way of life - and if Jesus was seen as the fulfillment of that way of life - then he had to be seen in the order of sacrifice. Thus - Jesus had to die to be offered to their god because all their sacrifices had to die. It was a way of life because it follows when one puts the real God outside of life; but when one - like me - believes that God is "inside of life," then sacrifice or appeal to God becomes meaningless. Doesn't it?
Will we ever realize the truth of what we did to Jesus - and with Jesus? Probably, if we survive long enough to do it - if we don't kill each other off in meaningless sacrifice before it can happen. In the meantime, it is not for me to live my life like it is probably not - like it is sinful with need of redemption. Yes, it is possible I was born in sin, but the probability of that is so low as to almost be impossible. And what wise person will live his or her life like the improbable is probable?
Inspiration –
From God or Another?
People are bound to ask: where are you getting this Jesus - certainly not the BIBLE? And I would say, you are right - not the BIBLE - at least not entirely. I think it is good to keep in mind that what we call the BIBLE offers one view of Jesus - that of necessary redeemer; but since when has any one "reporter" told everything exactly correct? Bias of reporting is bound to exist in any report - and that must include any artificially bound collection of books that is called the BIBLE. People lose sight that every book ever written by mankind and for mankind has been written by mankind - or by humans. Just claiming inspiration from God does not prove it; and the likelihood of a God inside of us all speaking to one of us as if God is only outside of us is very low. Back to my world of possibility and probability, yes, it is possible God might inspire some writing, but the probability of that is so low as to be almost non existent.
That is not to say that certain works could not have been inspired. It is only to say that all works probably could not have been inspired by God - though they could have been inspired by paranormal entities presenting themselves as God or agents of God. Who is to know about that? I suppose some humans have heard voices and maybe those voices have declared themselves as God - or of God - but that doesn't make them of God just because they claim it. Does it?
Why would a paranormal entity claim to be God when it is not so? For the rather obvious motive of gaining control of a subject - and perhaps a people through that subject. That would be my guess. Why not? There are people everywhere in bodies that have no problem with lying to manipulate or control others. So, if paranormal (or outside of body) entities do exist and somehow can communicate with certain willing subjects, why wouldn't they lie to gain control? Normal entities lie. Why wouldn't paranormal entities lie? I am not saying all paranormal entities do lie - only that some of them might just as some of us within bodies do.
It is worthwhile to keep in mind, too, that we will all become paranormal entities when we die because “paranormal” is only “outside the body." It is not so far fetched to believe in paranormal entities if we also believe that souls can exist outside of bodies. Is it? Thus, it is entirely possible that those who speak to some of us from outside of us and seem to be angels or devils may be others of us who have lived before and are now simply outside of us to continue on. Beware of those who “reveal” then – because it may only be Great Grandpa or Great Grandma, still intent on staying in control. I am not saying it’s so. I am only saying it might be so; and quite frankly since I do believe the soul continues after death as a paranormal entity – at least until it reincarnates – my thinking is that it is probably so.
What’s Fact?
What’s Fiction?
Anyway, without a probability of God inspiring any one author, we are left with the obvious - the story we have been told is not exactly right. How do you sift the right from the wrong? By perception. If a tale seems right, it might be; and if it might be, accept it as true unless demonstrated later as wrong. If a tale seems implausible, then assume it is false unless demonstrated somehow as right; but it makes no sense to base your life on tales as absolutely right when the probability is that much about them is wrong - or told for another reason other than just to tell the truth.
Was Jesus God – or of God – in a different way than we all are? It is unlikely Jesus was any different than any of us. If God is truly in everything – and not standing outside of us like an old fashioned “god,” why would God need to be sent to us by God – as is claimed by much “orthodox” tradition – Jewish, Islamic, and Christian?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would have us believe Jesus was “Godly” in a way different than the rest of us, but consider the reason for that. The reason for believing that Jesus was God – or of God – was belief that the rest of us are not. Thus, that is the basis of their tale - to tell stories that seem to impress us that Jesus was God; but the reasonable person can tell some fact from fiction - not all fact from fiction - but at least some fact from some fiction; and watch out when some alleged fact is demonstrated as quite probably, fiction. Then the whole story becomes undermined because no one can be sure of what is fact and what is fiction.
Example: The raising of Lazarus from the dead. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all emphasized miracles of Jesus to prove that Jesus was more powerful than us - but not one of them "reported" the greatest miracle of all time - the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Why did they not report it? Going forward with possibility and probability again, they probably did not report it because they did not know of it; and they probably did not know of it or about it because it did not happen. Why did John report it? Probably because he thought it would impress people to follow his lord, Jesus. Could it have been true? Not likely. If it had happened, a miracle of that stretch would have definitely been reported by the others - all of whom reported their stories long before John delivered his. Can you imagine it possible that three reporters knew of a miracle of such stupendous degree as the raising of Lazarus and did not report it? I cannot. And how could they have not known about it if it really happened? Again, the "probability" is that it didn't happen, thus making the reporting of it a lie. Right? So much for absolute truth in the BIBLE.
That is but one example; and it should "prove" that no one should believe everything as claimed in any book - be it a BIBLE or any claimed biography. That leaves "being reasonable" as the standard of belief. I believe what seems reasonable. Contrary to those who would have me believe without evidence, I believe only on the basis of what I can see - or what seems reasonable. Like Jesus offers in another gospel, THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS banned by the church by the 4th Century, Jesus said: Know what is in thy sight and what is hidden will be revealed to thee. Understandably, that is missing from the acclaimed gospels of the BIBLE because it does not support a need for believing without seeing. Does it? But which Jesus is right? Good question; but in the end, one has to decide that for him or herself based on overall perception of life.
Peter – or Mary Magdalene?
There are other gospels of Jesus too, banned by the church by the 4th Century - gospels like THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE. Is it authentic? I do not know; but neither do I know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are authentic. Who knows for sure about any of them? I don't. I was not there. So, how can I be sure? I can't, but I can believe what I want based upon previous perception of life; and, in the end, that is all any reasonable person can do.
In THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE, it is said that Peter asked Jesus about sin. What did Jesus reply? He said: There is no such thing as sin, but you create sin when you mingle as in adultery. Did Jesus really say that? I don't know, but I suspect he did because it is "probable" that he did, given his emphasis in the other gospels on the necessity of virtue. Virtue, I think, is practiced, not to overcome sin, but to express belief in the inherent goodness of life.
Anyway, there it is - Jesus denying the whole concept of sin of which the entire BIBLE is about. We "create sin." We are not "born with it." That is what Mary Magdalene has Jesus telling Peter; and yet Peter would have us to believe in the gospels of the BIBLE that he was given the authority by Jesus to start a church whose mission was to baptize members so they could be released of their birth sins. What a contradiction! Who is right? It is for each of us to decide that for ourselves. If you think it is sensible to believe that we are born with sin, then believe Peter - and in Peter - as offered in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If you believe that we are not born in sin, but can create sin by our actions, then believe in the Jesus of Mary Magdalene. To each, his or her own, but I choose Mary because it tells it more like I believe it.
The Resurrection of Jesus
Did Jesus appear to his apostles after his death – as is claimed by the gospels of the BIBLE? I do not know, but I suspect it was a tale in the order of the raising of Lazarus from the dead in order to command a following. The “John” who offered that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead may have seen the event in a dream and imagined it into reality. Who is to say? All sort of people dream a vision and are sure they have seen reality. It happens. So, who’s to say that John did not see Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in a dream – and then proceed to claim he had seen it in reality? And who’s to say that a friend of Jesus did not dream of Jesus after his death and consider it was a real event?
I don’t know what happened after the death of Jesus anymore than I know what really happened before his death; however, more than likely if people got Jesus wrong in life, they probably got him wrong in death too. It seems to me that most people who believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or after his death, in bodily form also believe that Jesus was a messiah sent by God to somehow release us from a sin we do not have. It is the tale of such believers that offer that Jesus rose from the dead. If they got Jesus wrong in life, how could it be wise to believe they got his death and assumed resurrection correct?
In truth, we can’t really know if Jesus really did rise from the dead because his story was told by those having a belief that death is a punishment for sin. If death is seen as a punishment for sin, then it follows that no one telling the story of Jesus as a Jewish Messiah could have allowed for death to stop Jesus. Death would have had to be climaxed with a story of resurrection – even if one did not really take place. Otherwise, salvation could not have been finished, as it were. There would have had to be a story of a resurrection just to complete the story of life as Jews saw it. There would have had to be some triumph over death by re-life, as it were, if sin was to be defeated. As long as one relates death to sin, then in the end, a true savior seen as sinless, would have to prove he was sinless by showing that death could not stop him. Thus, a true messiah would have to rise from the dead.
It is at least partly because a resurrection would have been “expected” of a Jesus that personally I am drawn to suspect any story that would offer a resurrection. On the other hand, I strongly believe in the immortality of the soul and I strongly believe in reincarnation as a likely process. I believe that souls use bodies to express themselves and define truth for themselves; and when a soul finishes with one body and leaves that body, upon death of body, then it is only natural to assume that it would take upon itself another body and continue its own personal drama.
In truth, reincarnation may only be a matter of timing. Normally, a soul would take a baby’s body for itself; but there is nothing to say that a soul might choose to take an adult body as well – given that such a body is empty of a soul. If Jesus died and his soul left his body for a time, then from my perspective, I accept the possibility of Jesus being able to enter his former body all over again. I can see that as a possibility; and thus I cannot deny a resurrection – or the possibility of one. Mystery clouds the whole process for me, however, and I admit I do not know any of the details. I don’t even know how a soul can take a baby body – let alone take an adult body; however, given that a soul can take any body at all pretty much assures me that a soul might be able to take an adult body for itself rather than a baby body – or embryo. So, in that light, I am a definite believer that Jesus may have risen from the dead; however I differ from most believers in the interpretation of such a resurrection.
If Jesus did rise from the dead and take – or retake – his former body, it was not to prove he had power over life. It was only to continue with another incarnation. In that, I am personally comforted because the very idea of reincarnation is of my belief; and it suggests that I am right in my belief in the immortality of the soul. If Jesus continued after death, then there is every reason for me to believe that I will too; and that is what the resurrection story does for me.
But if Jesus did rise from the dead, I doubt that he “rose into heaven” after some period of time, as is reported by gospel writers of the BIBLE. For what reason would he have done that if he was only continuing his soulful journey? And if he did rise from the dead, he would have likely had the same physical body too – and not just some spirit body.
Where would have Jesus gone after spending a few days with his friends if not “into heaven”? Who knows? Maybe he left with Thomas or someone and headed to Egypt. I do not know. In THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE, Mary simply states that after offering his blessing, he left them. She does not say where he went – just simply that he left them. Personally, I do not need to know where he went because I think it does not matter where he went. Wherever it was, he would have taken his light with him while leaving that same light behind for souls like me.
Belief and Good Sense
Am I to believe what I am told without requirement of good sense? Am I to believe that God is in some Heaven someplace waiting for me to come to Him via obedience to Peter and Paul? Or am I to believe that Heaven is everyplace because God is everyplace? Am I to believe that Hell without God waits for me should I deny the authority of Peter and Paul? Or am I to believe that no Hell without God can exist because no place can exist without God?
Show me, Hell. Maybe I will believe. Show me, Heaven. Maybe I will believe; but show me nothing and I would be a fool to accept your Heaven or your Hell, leaving me only wise to decide for myself what is Heaven and what is Hell. What is the basis of Hell? A place where God will give me over to Satan and let His rival pour fire over me? Where is such a place? What is the basis of Heaven? A place where God Himself will serve me and wait on me? I don't think so. Heaven is only knowing that wherever I am, God is; and Hell is only believing that where I am, God is not. You can inspire me with Heaven, but you cannot threaten me with Hell.
Some “Missing” Verses
Some “Added” Errors
I have alluded to two somewhat unknown gospels – THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS and THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE. Both were banned by the “orthodox” side of what has become Christianity. Though their rejection was probably due to several factors, I think the overriding factor causing their dismissal was the idea in them that in all likelihood, Jesus was not an “orthodox” Jew. In brief, he probably did not believe in Jewish Law, nor did he believe in the god called Jehovah. Jesus was about rule of heart. Jehovah was about command by law.
In my opinion, Jesus should have started and ended with Jesus. He was not about fulfilling any prophecy that had been initiated within Judaism; and yet to read the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, no such non-intention can be gained. To hear from these four is to hear that Jesus was an orthodox Jew intent on fulfilling orthodox Jewish schemes – namely in providing the world with a Jewish messiah. To be a Jewish messiah, Jesus would have had to believe in the basic standard of Judaism – that all men and women are born in sin; and yet, as I have pointed out, THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE has Jesus denying belief in such sin. How, then, could he have been a Jewish messiah intent on ridding the world of a sin in which he did not believe?
Still, there is something missing from THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE – and that same something is also missing from THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS. In neither of the verses that remain of either of these gospels is there the standard Christian precept of love one another and the equally important precept of forgive one another. Why are such precepts missing from THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS and THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE when it would seem they are as important as any that need to be fulfilled by a true Christian soul?
I do not know the answer to that – and I must admit that I have found the apparent omission somewhat perplexing – believing so strongly in them as I do. The four “orthodox” gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all embrace love and forgiveness as ideals, but the gospels of Thomas and Mary do not – at least not literally. Why? I think the answer to that may be in the word apparent. Indeed, those precepts may have been embraced within the original Thomas and Mary gospels, but are only missing from the surviving gospels of Thomas and Mary because they were found in verses that have not survived.
We now have a gospel of Thomas that includes 114 verses, however, quite likely, there were more than that in the original. Whether through deletion by translators or through corruption by age, only 114 verses remain. Likewise, with THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE, we have a gospel that now contains 5 verses, however, it is speculated by so called experts that six verses are missing from the front end and another four are missing from the middle. Perhaps, these missing verses contain the missing precepts of love & forgiveness that the four gospels of the BIBLE contain. I suspect so.
On the other hand, the four gospels of the BIBLE diminish the need for love & forgiveness as virtues that within themselves amount to salvation of soul. They do offer that Jesus claimed them as essential, but they also stop short of saying that even if one does practice love and forgiveness, it might not be sufficient. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, for instance, has Jesus telling the apostles after his resurrection and before leaving them to carry on his ministry that they should preach the gospel to all but what sins they will retain will be retained and what sins they forgive will be forgiven – at least implying that the retention or forgiveness of sin is not a matter of individual propriety, but up to God and those whom God might choose as His representatives.
It is this confusion, I think, that has lent itself down through the ages of stripping the individual from believing that love and forgiveness on its own merits salvation. This is, perhaps, the greatest disservice of the four gospels of the BIBLE. The very idea that forgiveness on my own part may not be enough has never set well within me. The very idea that someone else can override my own forgiving heart with some judgment by another has, indeed, caused me some very anxious times in life; but having other gospels – even though incomplete – has aided me considerably in recognizing that it is folly that love and forgiveness on my part may not be enough.
I think it is good to recognize that there is folly in the four gospels of the BIBLE, but it is also good to recognize that there are some very valuable instructions within them too. Even if Mark did copy from Thomas originally, at least Mark does entail the need for love and forgiveness. Perhaps Mark copied that idea from Thomas from verses of Thomas that have subsequently been lost, but regardless of source, I do believe that Mark got that right. That is just one example of “right thinking” to be found in the four gospels of the BIBLE.
Speaking for myself, of course, I will continue to review the gospels of the BIBLE for bits of wisdom lacking in my favorite gospels of Thomas and Mary; however, it is good to know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were only four of many who wrote about Jesus. In the end, it will have to be me who will have to discern truth from folly; but, personally, I consider that quite a privilege.
A Different World
We live in a different world in our 21st Century than that of Jesus and his friends. We have now been to that Moon that could only have been an amazement to those in the times of Jesus. We know now that it is much like our Earth - just smaller and without any life. We know now that the Sun is the center of our universe and we know that our light comes from our Sun and not from the god of the Old Testament. We know now that the world of heavenly bodies probably never ends; and there is that word "probably" again. We can't prove it doesn't end, but our science can leave us with no other conclusion than that it "probably" is infinite. Wow! It seems that galaxy after galaxy after galaxy extends and extends and extends from where we are on Earth. So, where can it end?
What should that tell us? For one, it should emphasize even more that there can be no Hell and no Heaven in terms of God being absent in one and present in the other. It makes no sense. How can there be a single spot in all of existence where God is absent? And if God is without absence anywhere in the entire span of our wonderful Creation, then maybe it is time we woke up and realized that Heaven is Here - and started acting like we are really in Paradise and always have been.
To quote the Jesus from THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE:
Peace be with you. Receive my peace.
Be careful that no one leads you astray by saying,
'Look here' or 'Look there'.
The child of humanity is within you. Follow that.
Those who seek it will find it.
Go and preach the good news of the kingdom.
Do not lay down any rules other than what I have given you,
and do not establish law, as the law giver did, or
you will be bound by it.
When he said this, he left them.
So, what do you think? Which Jesus is right? And what is the real kingdom of Jesus - and where is it? I think it's here; and that is how I choose to live my life, looking for the child of humanity within me, abiding by the rule of kindness or gentleness and imposing no law on others. There are kingdoms of law; and there are kingdoms of rule; but they are not the same. Law says, thou shall not; but if you do, you will be punished. Rule says, thou shall; but if you don’t, neither will you belong. There is no law that can command kindness, gentleness, and forgiveness. It’s entirely “rule of the heart." It is up to each to choose and have to live with the choice - at least until another choice is made.
Or so, I Believe!